Understood, but I was responding to greatgooglymoogly's assertion that an "anti-height position" is a problem, when in reality there are many advantages to having several smaller structures as opposed to a single taller one, which was part of the initial question.  I'm not proposing anything; I'm just addressing the original question.

 

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments.  My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories.  While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded.

 

Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create.

 

It is this sentence that really stood out to me.  While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing additions to our high-rise district.  Not everyone likes dogs either, but it would be unreasonable for those people to go to a dog park and complain about the barking.

 

 

Edit: I'm dumb and couldn't figure out how to quote two posts at once, so I put your earlier quote in bold to clarify.

^Precisely my problem with restricting height artificially in the CBD. It's the ONLY area of the region that has anything more than a couple towers here or there and if you aren't fond of being around skyscrapers, don't live there.

 

I don't like having a gigantic yard (well, a yard at all actually) so I don't move to suburbia and decry yards. That would be ridiculous.

 

It's like people who move directly next to a highway then complain about noise. You know where you purchased/rented. If you chose the CBD, expect skyscrapers to grow around you at some point. It's how American cities operate. There is a concentrated area of skyscrapers in the center of the city and that's a given.

Understood, but I was responding to greatgooglymoogly's assertion that an "anti-height position" is a problem, when in reality there are many advantages to having several smaller structures as opposed to a single taller one, which was part of the initial question.  I'm not proposing anything; I'm just addressing the original question.

 

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments.  My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories.  While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded.

 

Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create.

 

It is this sentence that really stood out to me.  While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing the growth of our high-rise district.  Not everyone likes dogs either, but those people don't go to dog parks and complain about the barking.

 

That isn't my stance and the quote you listed was urbanpioneer, not me.  I have no problem with skyscrapers, but I do strongly believe that all else being equal, two smaller structures are a better fit for Cincinnati's current needs than one taller structure of the same capacity.  I'm shocked at the amount of pushback I'm getting for simply not advocating a massive, theoretical apartment tower.  Welcome to the internet, I guess.

Well, no, it's pushback from a combination of posts by Urbanpioneer and you and a response that was very strict in its statement that smaller buildings = better due to short term problems Cincy faces.

 

But this has gotten very off topic.

If you are "anti-height" you shouldn't be in a city. Period. If you have a problem with tall buildings get out of the Central Business District. That's your problem, nobody else's.

 

I love tall buildings.  I just don't want one or two massive apartment towers to suck up all of the existing demand and stall development. 

 

Is this a joke?

 

they are two 14 story condo buildings with only 65 condos.  The demand we have is for thousands of more units. 

 

EDIT: I just noticed your comment further down where you clarified what you were saying.  Still, even one 29 story building is not going to suck up 'all of the existing demand'  We could build 3000 more residential units easily and rents will continue to go up because our core is so under built.

We could double these 3 towers and still not meet demand. Besides, the smaller condo buildings need to charge more because there's only so many units and when I say more, I mean ... more than what most people can afford.

Still, even one 29 story building is not going to suck up 'all of the existing demand'

 

No it wouldn't.  But the original question was:

 

I'm sure there's a good answer, but what are the advantages for doing two smaller buildings vs doing one 29 story building?

 

To which urbanpioneer brought up a valid concern about scale (which I understand but do not share), and greatgooglymoogly implied that an "anti-height position" is objectively negative.  I pointed out that there are good arguments for filling in the urban fabric rather than building skyward, and the whole thing spiraled from there.  It has nothing to do with this specific project at all.  Let's move on or move this discussion to an appropriate thread.

I agree on the scale issue! I want MORE 10-20 story buildings. I think they are the perfect Size for large chunks of our downtown. One off high rises like QCS or Skyhouse are nice, but I don't bank on them. 

Gee, the last time I was in Paris or London I don't recall being overshadowed by lots of hi-rise buildings...

 

Seriously, some people who are fixated on tall buildings seem to disregard how very narrow many of the streets are in the CBD.  Cincinnati is different in that regard compared to a lot of other cities its size.  And it can make a big difference when it comes to hi-rises.  I'm just glad those who are perpetually fixated on hi-rise construction for nearly every potential development downtown are only armchair developers.

 

I'm also glad jmicha said good things about the proposed development at 8th & Main, but I really resent his architectural snobbery saying that if I don't like tall buildings I shouldn't live in the CBD.  I could say more but I don't want to get kicked off the forum so I'll leave it at that.  I like tall buildings -- on sites that are appropriate for them.  I just think Griewe's plans for the two mid-rise buildings are much more suitable for their 8th & Main location than a 29-story building would be. 

Gee, the last time I was in Paris or London I don't recall being overshadowed by lots of hi-rise buildings...

 

Seriously, some people who are fixated on tall buildings seem to disregard how very narrow many of the streets are in the CBD.  Cincinnati is different in that regard compared to a lot of other cities its size.  And it can make a big difference when it comes to hi-rises.  I'm just glad those who are perpetually fixated on hi-rise construction for nearly every potential development downtown are only armchair developers.

 

I'm also glad jmicha said good things about the proposed development at 8th & Main, but I really resent his architectural snobbery saying that if I don't like tall buildings I shouldn't live in the CBD.  I could say more but I don't want to get kicked off the forum so I'll leave it at that.  I like tall buildings -- on sites that are appropriate for them.  I just think Griewe's plans for the two mid-rise buildings are much more suitable for their 8th & Main location than a 29-story building would be.

 

 

Um what?

 

 

 

The historical zones of Paris/London are applicable to OTR. Historic zones have a strict guideline in terms of architectural styles, and height limitation.

 

Within the Central business district, height matters. As you can see, the historical zone of Paris, and the CBD of Paris in the background.

Gee, the last time I was in Paris or London I don't recall being overshadowed by lots of hi-rise buildings...

 

Seriously, some people who are fixated on tall buildings seem to disregard how very narrow many of the streets are in the CBD.  Cincinnati is different in that regard compared to a lot of other cities its size.  And it can make a big difference when it comes to hi-rises.  I'm just glad those who are perpetually fixated on hi-rise construction for nearly every potential development downtown are only armchair developers.

 

I'm also glad jmicha said good things about the proposed development at 8th & Main, but I really resent his architectural snobbery saying that if I don't like tall buildings I shouldn't live in the CBD.  I could say more but I don't want to get kicked off the forum so I'll leave it at that.  I like tall buildings -- on sites that are appropriate for them.  I just think Griewe's plans for the two mid-rise buildings are much more suitable for their 8th & Main location than a 29-story building would be. 

 

Right, it's just "architectural snobbery" despite having literally nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with urban planning. There is (1) area of the entire region with skyscrapers. If you don't want to live around tall buildings, why on earth would you move to the CBD? That's poor planning.

 

And this site is literally a block away from much larger buildings. It is 100% appropriate for a taller building if that were to what someone should choose.

 

And London or Paris definitely do have tall buildings, not that that would really matter at all when discussing American city density patterns. And London has them on far narrower streets than our CBD has. It's objectively false to say they don't have tall buildings.

 

As for this project, the buildings' scale is fine. I would have supported a single taller building but two 14/15 story buildings will also add to the structural density and add what will probably be around 150 people to a quiet side of Downtown if the 90 unit figure comes true.

Cincinnati is not experiencing any kind of land crush.  It would be great to see the city enact policy that encourages low and mid-rise redevelopment of its many surface parking lots and penalizes developers who wish to demolish any existing structure to expand a developable footprint.  For example, there could be a 10+ year property tax exemption or even construction worker earnings tax rebate to the developer for appropriate redevelopment of parking lots but a permanent 2X property tax penalty for any project that involves the demolition of any pre-1950 structure. 

Troy Eros, are you not aware that there already exists a Main Street Historic District?  The photo you've provided actually supports low-rise development in an historic district.  I haven't called for that.

Cincinnati is not experiencing any kind of land crush.  It would be great to see the city enact policy that encourages low and mid-rise redevelopment of its many surface parking lots and penalizes developers who wish to demolish any existing structure to expand a developable footprint.  For example, there could be a 10+ year property tax exemption or even construction worker earnings tax rebate to the developer for appropriate redevelopment of parking lots but a permanent 2X property tax penalty for any project that involves the demolition of any pre-1950 structure. 

 

15 years from now when we filled downtown with a bunch of 5 story buildings everyone would be FURIOUS that someone had such a ridiculous idea.  How many people look at the 4 story apartment building at 6th and Race and think WHY ISN'T THAT 10 STORIES.

 

Advocating for low rise development in downtown is a bad bad bad idea.

^ Isn't that the issue in San Fran that's driven rent to such ridiculous levels?

Among many other things, yes. A complete lack of ability to build densely enough in fear of ruining "historic districts" so the price of crappy little victorian houses skyrocketed to the point where only the wealthy could afford them anyway and they would buy them and convert them back to single family buildings resulting in extreme lack of inventory. And then NIMBYs blast every development in the city for being "out of scale" resulting in buildings nowhere near large enough to handle the needs of the population going up and taking up valuable real estate that could have housed 2-10x as many units if people weren't so incessantly opposed to literally anything and everything that gets proposed in SF.

 

But Cincy will likely never have that level of demand. Which is a good thing. Doesn't mean we should push for low-density development though, especially along our only rail line and in the only part of the city where highrises are acceptable.

We already wasted a ton of potential by allowing single-family townhomes to get built along the streetcar line on Elm Street. We should be pushing for a much higher density along Main and Walnut near streetcar stops.

^ Isn't that the issue in San Fran that's driven rent to such ridiculous levels?

 

dear lord we are nowhere near the point where we can start talking about San Francisco's situation, or even rent control.  Cincinnati did have rent control, but that was more than 50 years ago, before the era of rent control that SF and NYC still have today, because there was practically zero buildable land in the Cincinnati basin or most of its hillside or hilltop neighborhoods.  We have tons and tons of vacant land not only in DT and OTR, but the rest of the city.  We still have tons of move-in ready houses sitting vacant and listed for $50k or less in various neighborhoods.  Newport and Covington, directly across the river, are similarly halfway bombed-out. 

 

Unless you turn Yves's comment into something it wasn't, nobody here is saying that we're anything like San Francisco. Just that artificially limiting height in the Downtown of a region can bring with it a lot of really negative consequences. In SF's case, it is the stupidly high rent for s**thole apartments and an unhealthy reliance on one industry since it's the only one that pays well enough to afford the BS rents SF commands.

 

In Cincinnati it could be that we wind up underutilizing our first rail line in 6 decades by building squat buildings.

Maximizing use of the streetcar line by residents is not motivation enough for tarnishing Over-the-Rhine's traditional character with high-rise buildings and slowing its repopulation.  And as I've stated several times over the years, everyone living in an apartment or condo more than five stories off the ground is someone not living at stories 4 or lower in one of the area's countless vacant buildings or in new construction on a vacant lot.   

 

Nobody's suggesting limiting building heights to 4 floors like the Walgreen's apartments.  But building heights of some kind -- be it 10 or 16 or 20 floors -- limit the impact a hideous new project can have on the city's appearance.  It's simply a fact that we haven't gotten a great new building downtown in decades, and there's no reason to suspect that great buildings are about to start happening. 

Mkay Jake.

The Paris and San Francisco situations need some clarification.  For one thing, central Paris isn't really low-rise, it's 7-stories.  That's Calhoun Street, but on every single block over an area from the riverfront to St. Bernard.  Their streets are also half as wide, if not less, even counting the grand boulevards, and they don't waste land on useless "green space" or buffer zones or parking lots/garages.  That's how you get nearly the same population density as Manhattan with just 7-story buildings. 

 

San Francisco and most US cities have such "peaky" downtowns because that's the only place any reasonably dense development can happen at all.  Once you get just a short ways outside the downtown, you're limited to low-density automobile-oriented sprawl by zoning.  In many cities what urban development exists outside of downtown is only grandfathered in, or at best is allowed to be maintained as-is but no bigger.  Yes San Francisco's core neighborhoods aren't THAT dense, certainly not compared to Paris or New York (SF has only 30% the population density of Paris), and that's in no small part because it's completely strangled by single-family residential zoning, whether in city neighborhoods or the suburbs.  Chicago is the same, and even a lot of Brooklyn and Queens are single-family only.  Yes they may be smaller lot, even attached, with some denser commercial nodes scattered about, but because there's such a tight noose around all development in the entire metro area, so much of the demand gets focused on the few lots where high density is allowed.  The other problem with that is it causes speculation on those few parcels, further stalling out development. 

 

Cincinnati may not be quite in that position now, at least not region-wide, or even city-wide, but you can see it in OTR, Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, and Mt. Adams.  The desirability of those neighborhoods and the inability to do anything but rebuild what's already there causes prices to go up which pushes other people out.  But it's not the rich who get pushed out, because they're the ones who are doing the pushing since they want to live in these neighborhoods.  That's what makes it difficult to bring other neighborhoods up, when it's only those who've been displaced are left to try to repopulate them.  Granted someone priced out of Hyde Park is unlikely to be poor, but once you're out there's the whole metro area to pick from, so everyone gets spread thin and building the critical mass to turn around another neighborhood is difficult. 

 

So if there's a concern about high rises downtown or excessive rents and development in OTR, it's necessary to look at the whole region and see why people are being squeezed into these specific locations.  Walkability and amenities are certainly a factor, and even in Hyde Park Square or Northside those can be lacking.  In part that's because those neighborhoods are not as walkable as they may seem due to low-density zoning surrounding their business districts.  I personally believe that 2, 3, and 4-family apartments as well as garage apartments should be allowed as of right in the whole city.  You could theoretically quadruple the population of an area without significantly changing its overall form, and then you get much better transit performance.  That's also the increment necessary to encourage redevelopment of run-down or fallow neighborhoods.  It doesn't make financial sense to redevelop single-family into two-family, the numbers just don't work, but a 4x increase in density is where the numbers finally start to pan out. 

 

I'll stop rambling now.

I would say too, since I am in the area and looking for housing, that Columbia Tusculum is really getting quite expensive everywhere.  The only place I could find a house for sale less than 150k was on Eastern Avenue, which I think is gentrifying at a slow pace, albeit.  In Columbia Tusculum, they are squeezing in everywhere these 3 story, townhome like buildings on the hill sides and side streets, that are going for 500k to 600k.  And you can look and see on all of those older houses, that asking prices are much higher than they were 5 years ago.  Columbia Tusculum could really do itself good by building a few more of those big apartment projects like Delta Flats.  It seems they are filling in an area of Columbia Parkway and Hoge street, which I think could easily add 400 apartments with a 5 story building and really boost that area of CT.

 

All that said, I don't see Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout changing much over the years.  It seems they are quite content with the way things are and don't want anymore traffic or congestion.  Especially if the streetcar moves to uptown, the area around Inwood Park, Short Vine, etc. could really get a huge boost, because that area is quite depressed as of now.  I think that is the next logical area for a more affordable OTR / Uptown mix type neighborhood that would be great for Mid-20's on up working professionals.  I think Cincinnati really needs to look at catering to that age group, because it seems the Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, CT, OTR area is the only place really doing that so much now, and OTR seems to be pushing more towards empty nester expensive type neighborhood.  That's what would be the best part of a tunnel to Uptown.  You can have all the amenities of downtown, OTR, Uptown area, Short Vine, Findlay Market, etc. all within walking distance and no need for a car.  That's what Cincinnati needs most to boost talent recruitment, IMO.

Densification of typical residential areas by the addition of basement apartments and detached garage apartments or the construction of several houses on a lot formerly occupied by a single house is one thing.  The built density of a downtown is another.  In Cincinnati the economic pressures that exist in other cities don't exist here because the metro population is barely growing and there is not a land crunch...there is no physical or legal growth boundary (lake, ocean, watershed, mountain range, restricted growth of water & sewer, or formal growth boundary ala Portland, OR), and there is no rapid transit system.  People live in Cincinnati's denser neighborhoods as a hobby and buy property there as speculative investments -- not because of some real practical concern or because they have to due to a lack of affordable alternatives.

 

Nobody's going to convince me that under current conditions we should permit infill in Over-the-Rhine higher than the buildings that already exist there.  DT is different of course, but as we are seeing with the huge parking garage planned for the Pogue's parking garage site, big residential developments in the downtown will continue to require gigantic parking garages. 

 

Being disingenuous isn't a sport Jake. The Pogue's Garage development having a massive parking isn't because it's a residential development. It's replacing a large parking garage and the city wants just as many spaces. In no world does a 208 unit building require 925 spaces. Not even in Cincinnati.

 

People really get on my nerves around here throwing that or 8th and Sycamore around as "omg Cincinnati development requires gigantic garages" examples when it's completely bogus. They're both replacing garages and adding development on top of the replacement. Pretending they have such massive garages purely for the residential on top is a flat out lie.

jmicha[/member] how many spaces are in the existing garage?

I honestly don't remember the exact count, but it's barely different than Pogue's Garage now. But it's now also serving 208 units and 25,000 square feet of retail space. In the end we actually have less spaces/user but that argument seems lost on a lot of people.

 

Updated image on the historic conservation board packet:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/

 

They also have additional scale details as well

^ Much better.

Nice looking building!

 

Two new nuggets of info from this latest packet:

 

-south tower is 14 stories confirmed

 

-811 Main St (Sophia's building) is staying!

Hmm, at some point you just have to embrace the 3-point perspective for images of taller buildings.  That's way too tilt-shifty. 

You should know there's no such thing as non-parallel verticals in architecture!

 

This building looks like it'll wind up being a nice addition. I'd love to see renderings of the pair.

I'm all for perspective correction, but when the building gets too tall eventually it cries uncle. 

My favorite are renderings for 500'+ buildings that are in 2-point perspective. It tricks the brain into thinking the tower gets significantly larger towards the top.

Very nice building.  Can we break ground next week?

I am a little disappointed that this development does not reach as far west as Bowen Street. I wonder how long we will be stuck with a surface lot immediately west of the south tower.

It is a nice looking mid-rise.

Wow that's very nice looking. I'm guess the success of this tower, will essentially be the "test" for other developers? If this is a success, I imagine more out of town developers will jump on board as well, and start eating up the available lots.

I am a little disappointed that this development does not reach as far west as Bowen Street. I wonder how long we will be stuck with a surface lot immediately west of the south tower.

 

Agreed. Fortunately, though... it seems like this was designed to accommodate development to the west. The west elevation of the south tower seems designed in such a way, with a large windowless section up to the 9th floor... which would make it easy to have an adjacent building built on a 4-level platform, with a "tower" up to the 9th floor, without blocking any windows or sightlines.

 

 

I am a little disappointed that this development does not reach as far west as Bowen Street. I wonder how long we will be stuck with a surface lot immediately west of the south tower.

 

I'm actually happy about that. I'd like to see more buildings rather than big block-spanning behemoths a la dunnhumby. Much more interesting.

I am a little disappointed that this development does not reach as far west as Bowen Street. I wonder how long we will be stuck with a surface lot immediately west of the south tower.

 

I'm actually happy about that. I'd like to see more buildings rather than big block-spanning behemoths a la dunnhumby. Much more interesting.

 

^Good point. Best case scenario would be two different buildings from different designers/developers.

I am a little disappointed that this development does not reach as far west as Bowen Street. I wonder how long we will be stuck with a surface lot immediately west of the south tower.

 

I'm actually happy about that. I'd like to see more buildings rather than big block-spanning behemoths a la dunnhumby. Much more interesting.

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

Being disingenuous isn't a sport Jake. The Pogue's Garage development having a massive parking isn't because it's a residential development. It's replacing a large parking garage and the city wants just as many spaces. In no world does a 208 unit building require 925 spaces. Not even in Cincinnati.

 

People really get on my nerves around here throwing that or 8th and Sycamore around as "omg Cincinnati development requires gigantic garages" examples when it's completely bogus. They're both replacing garages and adding development on top of the replacement. Pretending they have such massive garages purely for the residential on top is a flat out lie.

 

Sorry I was not clear.  Any development that takes the place of a surface lot, and certainly a public garage, will need to replace most if not all of the parking it takes, in addition to whatever parking the development requires.  The Banks is the most dramatic example of this.  The Pogue's garage is probably #2.  But even in the case of the surface lots in the northern half of downtown, there will be some need to replace public parking in garages for new developments. 

 

Getting back to the density conversation, I don't think anyone can successfully argue that a cityscape that forces all parking to be underground (i.e. Washington, DC) is more attractive and functions better than one where towers on top of 10-story garages next to surface lots next to towers next to 8-deck parking garages next to lots like everything in Texas or what Cincinnati is gradually becoming.  If force all parking to be underground, it limits the height of towers, which is fine with me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of Bowen St, I love that Google sent their cars down it to capture Streetview footage: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1043612,-84.5112741,3a,90y,358.3h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy8i3C65Li1MITz796Zkc-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

Nice looking building!

 

-811 Main St (Sophia's building) is staying!

 

It is? I mean, there's no request for demolition, but I'm not seeing it in any of the renderings in the packet - the north tower has that space in the renderings.

Nice looking building!

 

-811 Main St (Sophia's building) is staying!

 

It is? I mean, there's no request for demolition, but I'm not seeing it in any of the renderings in the packet - the north tower has that space in the renderings.

 

It's on page 133 of 312 of the updated packet labeled "3/21/2016 staff reports and attachments"

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/march-21-2016-staff-reports-and-attachment-s/

Here's the east elevation (from page 133 of that document of attachments), showing how both towers would be adjacent to the historic 3.5 story buildings directly to the north and south. The dashed line in the rendering marked "2" has the note: "Masonry base relates to the three and four story masonry structures."

 

Bowdeya Tweh is reporting from the Historic Conservation Board that is going on right now: https://twitter.com/BowdeyaTweh

 

Here's what the <a href="https://twitter.com/BowdeyaTweh/status/712006697620000768">city staff recommendation</a> is:

On the 2-story bldg, built in 1955, the city staff's recommendation is that it can be razed. The 6-story building, no way.

A bit of a monkeywrench in the works, but sometimes odd problems like building around existing buildings or incorporating them into a reworked design lead to interesting solutions. On the bright side, a good sign for the Dennison Hotel perhaps?

 

If they are denied demolition of the corner building and somehow build around/over/incorporated into it then something cool could come of that. I still question what can be done from the sounds of John Schneider's letter, but who knows, maybe it'll force Senhauser and the developers to get creative.